Jump to content


Photo

Americans hate the Federal Government more than ever


  • Please log in to reply
693 replies to this topic

#681 grinreaper

grinreaper

    RFA

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,478 posts

Posted 10 August 2017 - 04:06 PM

There are good employees there?

 

(I hope so....)

Yes, there are some very good, dedicated VA employees.



#682 row_33

row_33

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,016 posts

Posted 10 August 2017 - 04:14 PM

Yes, there are some very good, dedicated VA employees.

 

Good to hear.



#683 ExiledInIllinois

ExiledInIllinois

    Making It Flow Backwards

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 36,780 posts

Posted 10 August 2017 - 07:20 PM

having this issue is a pain in the ass. When refueling equipment the new spouts often get in the way and funnels make situations worse.

It has, however, drawn more sales of truck bed fuel cells


We've been using Type II safety cans for as long as I can remember @ work... Going on 30 years.

$_1.JPG

Only thing we are allowed to use.

Yes, new residential cans are a PITA... BUT, these tried and true are as old as the hills. I have a 1.5 gallon I use @ home. Got it from my father inlaw, he's had it since the late 1960s. They still make them.

#684 Boyst62

Boyst62

    Hall of Farmer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 31,761 posts

Posted 10 August 2017 - 07:45 PM

We've been using Type II safety cans for as long as I can remember @ work... Going on 30 years.

$_1.JPG

Only thing we are allowed to use.

Yes, new residential cans are a PITA... BUT, these tried and true are as old as the hills. I have a 1.5 gallon I use @ home. Got it from my father inlaw, he's had it since the late 1960s. They still make them.

yeah. Let me get 20 of those to fill my 30 gallon tank

#685 ExiledInIllinois

ExiledInIllinois

    Making It Flow Backwards

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 36,780 posts

Posted 11 August 2017 - 09:28 AM

yeah. Let me get 20 of those to fill my 30 gallon tank

??? 20? Only 6. I have a 1.5 @ home. We use those (1.5 gallon safety can) @ work for the mixed-fuel applications only... Like chain saws, weed eaters, & snowblowers.

That's a 5 gallon can right there in my pic posted above. That's all we use @ work since the enviros got rid of our 500 gallon underground gasoline tank. We still have the 1,000 gallon underground diesel tank though.

We fill way more equipment daily then you do on the farm.

Edited by ExiledInIllinois, 11 August 2017 - 09:28 AM.


#686 B-Man

B-Man

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,593 posts

Posted 16 August 2017 - 02:24 PM

WHAT COULD GO WRONG?

 

Gov. Cuomo Wants a New Hate Crime Law. Would Police Use It to Suppress Protests? Enhanced sentences for rioting against a “protected class”? In two states, that now includes law enforcement.

 

 

 

 

 

Cuomo should go back to fixing the subways and roads. And by “go back to” I mean “start.”



#687 ExiledInIllinois

ExiledInIllinois

    Making It Flow Backwards

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 36,780 posts

Posted 16 August 2017 - 03:02 PM

WHAT COULD GO WRONG?
 
Gov. Cuomo Wants a New Hate Crime Law. Would Police Use It to Suppress Protests? Enhanced sentences for rioting against a protected class? In two states, that now includes law enforcement.
 
 
 
 
 
Cuomo should go back to fixing the subways and roads. And by go back to I mean start.

Maybe you should start a thread: "Why Americans hate State Government."

Edited by ExiledInIllinois, 16 August 2017 - 03:02 PM.


#688 TakeYouToTasker

TakeYouToTasker

    The smartest man in the room.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,198 posts

Posted 16 August 2017 - 03:06 PM

WHAT COULD GO WRONG?

 

Gov. Cuomo Wants a New Hate Crime Law. Would Police Use It to Suppress Protests? Enhanced sentences for rioting against a “protected class”? In two states, that now includes law enforcement.

 

 

 

 

 

Cuomo should go back to fixing the subways and roads. And by “go back to” I mean “start.”

Wouldn't stand up to judicial challenge.  The Supremes weighed in on this in late June.

 

Hate speech is protected speech, and given that the Constitution is the High Law of the Land, there is no law that can be passed to overrule it.

 

Would require Constitutional Amendment.



#689 ExiledInIllinois

ExiledInIllinois

    Making It Flow Backwards

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 36,780 posts

Posted 16 August 2017 - 03:07 PM

Wouldn't stand up to judicial challenge.  The Supremes weighed in on this in late June.
 
Hate speech is protected speech, and given that the Constitution is the High Law of the Land, there is no law that can be passed to overrule it.
 
Would require Constitutional Amendment.


So we should NOT hate Federal government then?

#690 DC Tom

DC Tom

    Also sniping at retards from the balcony

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 62,036 posts

Posted 16 August 2017 - 03:17 PM

Wouldn't stand up to judicial challenge.  The Supremes weighed in on this in late June.

 

Hate speech is protected speech, and given that the Constitution is the High Law of the Land, there is no law that can be passed to overrule it.

 

Would require Constitutional Amendment.

 

Or a properly written set of regulations issued through a department completely irrelevant to the issue.  



#691 Nanker

Nanker

    The Beer Was Cold!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,139 posts

Posted 16 August 2017 - 03:47 PM

Like the EPA. They're great at telling people how to live, what they can and cannot do. I can see it now, they'll concoct some dummy data that proves that hate speech increases global warming. Ergo, it must be banned.   :wallbash:



#692 DC Tom

DC Tom

    Also sniping at retards from the balcony

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 62,036 posts

Posted 16 August 2017 - 03:59 PM

Like the EPA. They're great at telling people how to live, what they can and cannot do. I can see it now, they'll concoct some dummy data that proves that hate speech increases global warming. Ergo, it must be banned.   :wallbash:

 

I was thinking more Department of Labor.  Issue some set of regs requiring the silencing of controversial speech in the work place or on the job, maybe piggy-back it on OSHA or something ("creates a dangerous work environment"), thereby requiring employers to fire employees who express controversial views in or out of the workplace.



#693 Joe Miner

Joe Miner

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,921 posts

Posted 16 August 2017 - 07:12 PM

 
I was thinking more Department of Labor.  Issue some set of regs requiring the silencing of controversial speech in the work place or on the job, maybe piggy-back it on OSHA or something ("creates a dangerous work environment"), thereby requiring employers to fire employees who express controversial views in or out of the workplace.


Anyone got a pen and a piece of paper?

#694 DC Tom

DC Tom

    Also sniping at retards from the balcony

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 62,036 posts

Posted 16 August 2017 - 07:19 PM

Anyone got a pen and a piece of paper?


No paper. Got a phone, though.